Then your problem is with the meat company not the restaurant. Don't force the restaurant to sell vegetarian meals. Force the meat company to stop applying anti-competitive pressure on the restaurant. Then, if the restaurant sees fit to sell vegitarian great; if not, at least the vegitarian option competed on an even playing field.
They did compensate him for this agreement. It's called his salary. What's they you say? They're no longer paying it? Exactly. That's what he and Microsoft agreed to (at least, I assume so--I haven't read the contract). They pay him a salary and when he leaves he can't compete for a time. If he didn't like the non-compete clause, he could have turned down the job. If he didn't feel the salary was sufficient compensation, he should have asked for more. Simple as that.
If you hack, if you break in, then you should be punished, but is that was happened here?
Information was published by an agent of the university on a publically accessible web server, and these students read that published information. If that's hacking, if that's breaking in, then arrest me now because I've done the equivalent at least a thousand times, and I'll do so again.
There was no hacking here. There was no break in here. The information was published on the web, and understandably curious students read it.
What's really going on here is blame deflection. This is admittedly an incident that should not have occurred. If the students are not to blame then where does the blame belong? On ApplyYourself, and in turn on those university administrators who trusted the application process to them. But of course, those are the very people who are now being asked where the blame belongs, so is it any wonder the blame is deflected to the students?
These students did nothing wrong. Typing in a URL and reading the web page returned is equivalent to calling ApplyYourself on the phone, asking for the results and listening to the answer. If they weren't supposed to have the results, it was ApplyYourself's responsibility to make sure that answer was "Sorry, you can't have that information."
You can stop this behavior. In the registry, there is a string value NEVERSHOWEXT associated with these file types. If you delete this key, the extension will display if known extensions are not set to be hidden.
As to the question of why did Microsoft do this? Because they're freaking retards. It makes no sense to build a system that relies on extensions to differentiate types and then hide those extensions from the user.
I think the real truth lies somewhere between your two points. You're right; the average Joe doesn't understand that this is akin to leaving a door unlocked. But if average Joe knows that there is a bank manager who is accountable to lock that door, he will probably assume that the manager does so because it would be stupid to not do so. The proof of this is simple to see: how often have _you_ checked up to make sure your bank manager locks the door? If you hear someone robbed the bank, you are mad at the manager if the door was unlocked, but don't blame him if they break in the door. If you don't hear otherwise, you will likely assume it was a break in.
Likewise, if average Joe knows that there is someone accountable for "locking the door" to his SSN, he assumes that this person will not act stupidly. However, in this case when the SSN's are stolen, average Joe cannot recognize if the door was unlocked. Since he assumes lack of stupidity, his tendency is to assume that "the door was broken-in" (i.e. the system was "hacked"). Often, even when those who _do_ understand point out his error, he cannot quite grasp it. It's so beyond his normal way of thinking that it's all just hacking to him.
YMMV
-raxxerax
You're absolutely right, but why is it that some people just can't seem to come to grips with this?
No matter what scheme you use to identify yourself to a computer, it's all just bits to the computer. So id-cards, biometrics or what have you are nothing but different types of password schemes when all is said and done. An id-card can be changed if needed, but biometric identification is a password you can *never* change. No matter how difficult it is to crack that password, once it's cracked it's useless. Worse than that, it's a liability.
I won't ever consent to biometric identification because the cons greatly outweigh the pros.
From this perspective, picking a Linux distro is probably not much more stresful than picking a candy bar brand.
In the past, it was very much more stressful. Joe Six-Pack could really try of Linux without making significant changes to his box that he didn't really understand without even knowing if he would like Linux in the first place.
The Live CDs go a long way to making the choosing of a Linux "brand" less stressful. Joe Six-Pack can try out a lot of different flavors without even changing the configuration of his Windows box. He can choose one that is somewhat to his liking and play with it for a while, again without risking his precious and familiar Windows. Eventually, he may decide to take the plunge and stop using Windows altogether. But if not, he's lost nothing.
Me? Personally, I have quite an imagination. So much so, that I believe I can come up with an application explicit to me. Then show me the free software that will do my bidding.
Regardless of whether you wish a free (as in freedom) solution or a proprietary solution, it would seem that you would either have to develop the program yourself or pay for its development. Proprietary software provides no better solution for your imaginative need.
Thanks for clearing that up. How could we all have been so stupid as to think that we know what we need? In the future, anytime I feel the urge to form my own opinion of my needs, I'll be sure to consult you straight away.
How about allowing a user to place a site on a list of sites that will be asked for the same hash (randomly chosen for each site) everytime? This means that sourceforge simply needs to save the hash and send it with subsequent emails.
The reason for the ruling [requiring the broadcast flag]: If TV broadcasters start sending movies such as Finding Nemo over the air in high definition, it will be too easy for any techie to set up a PC that automatically uploads perfect copies to the Net.
It is trivial to copy your eyes. To the computer your eyes are just a string of ones and zeroes. Once a thief has the stream that matches your eyes he can find a way to feed that to the computer and it will "think" it's interacting with you.
Of course, biometrics is more useful when combined with additional security factors such as passwords. That is why I specifically mentioned that fact in the very message to which you replied.
How long until someone sets up a phony ATM to capture retinal patterns? And unlike passwords, your retinal pattern is not something you can change as needed.
Don't get me wrong, biometrics has its place but that place is part of a multi-factor security system. I predict that we will eventually see ATMs that require a card, password and biometrics. Three factors: something you have, something you know and something you are.
Slashdot Mirror
Then your problem is with the meat company not the restaurant. Don't force the restaurant to sell vegetarian meals. Force the meat company to stop applying anti-competitive pressure on the restaurant. Then, if the restaurant sees fit to sell vegitarian great; if not, at least the vegitarian option competed on an even playing field.
They did compensate him for this agreement. It's called his salary. What's they you say? They're no longer paying it? Exactly. That's what he and Microsoft agreed to (at least, I assume so--I haven't read the contract). They pay him a salary and when he leaves he can't compete for a time. If he didn't like the non-compete clause, he could have turned down the job. If he didn't feel the salary was sufficient compensation, he should have asked for more. Simple as that.
If you hack, if you break in, then you should be punished, but is that was happened here?
Information was published by an agent of the university on a publically accessible web server, and these students read that published information. If that's hacking, if that's breaking in, then arrest me now because I've done the equivalent at least a thousand times, and I'll do so again.
There was no hacking here. There was no break in here. The information was published on the web, and understandably curious students read it.
What's really going on here is blame deflection. This is admittedly an incident that should not have occurred. If the students are not to blame then where does the blame belong? On ApplyYourself, and in turn on those university administrators who trusted the application process to them. But of course, those are the very people who are now being asked where the blame belongs, so is it any wonder the blame is deflected to the students?
-Raxxerax
These students did nothing wrong. Typing in a URL and reading the web page returned is equivalent to calling ApplyYourself on the phone, asking for the results and listening to the answer. If they weren't supposed to have the results, it was ApplyYourself's responsibility to make sure that answer was "Sorry, you can't have that information."
-Raxxerax
You can stop this behavior. In the registry, there is a string value NEVERSHOWEXT associated with these file types. If you delete this key, the extension will display if known extensions are not set to be hidden.
As to the question of why did Microsoft do this? Because they're freaking retards. It makes no sense to build a system that relies on extensions to differentiate types and then hide those extensions from the user.
Anyway, hope this info helps.
I think the real truth lies somewhere between your two points. You're right; the average Joe doesn't understand that this is akin to leaving a door unlocked. But if average Joe knows that there is a bank manager who is accountable to lock that door, he will probably assume that the manager does so because it would be stupid to not do so. The proof of this is simple to see: how often have _you_ checked up to make sure your bank manager locks the door? If you hear someone robbed the bank, you are mad at the manager if the door was unlocked, but don't blame him if they break in the door. If you don't hear otherwise, you will likely assume it was a break in. Likewise, if average Joe knows that there is someone accountable for "locking the door" to his SSN, he assumes that this person will not act stupidly. However, in this case when the SSN's are stolen, average Joe cannot recognize if the door was unlocked. Since he assumes lack of stupidity, his tendency is to assume that "the door was broken-in" (i.e. the system was "hacked"). Often, even when those who _do_ understand point out his error, he cannot quite grasp it. It's so beyond his normal way of thinking that it's all just hacking to him. YMMV -raxxerax
Developers! Developers! Developers!
...that I find this pretty hard to swallow.
Now let's face it: Microsoft seems to care more about the interaction between various kinds of hardware and their OS.
Now let's face it: In Microsoft's closed-source world they have to.
You're absolutely right, but why is it that some people just can't seem to come to grips with this?
No matter what scheme you use to identify yourself to a computer, it's all just bits to the computer. So id-cards, biometrics or what have you are nothing but different types of password schemes when all is said and done. An id-card can be changed if needed, but biometric identification is a password you can *never* change. No matter how difficult it is to crack that password, once it's cracked it's useless. Worse than that, it's a liability.
I won't ever consent to biometric identification because the cons greatly outweigh the pros.
From this perspective, picking a Linux distro is probably not much more stresful than picking a candy bar brand.
In the past, it was very much more stressful. Joe Six-Pack could really try of Linux without making significant changes to his box that he didn't really understand without even knowing if he would like Linux in the first place.
The Live CDs go a long way to making the choosing of a Linux "brand" less stressful. Joe Six-Pack can try out a lot of different flavors without even changing the configuration of his Windows box. He can choose one that is somewhat to his liking and play with it for a while, again without risking his precious and familiar Windows. Eventually, he may decide to take the plunge and stop using Windows altogether. But if not, he's lost nothing.
Very much a stressless experience.
Me? Personally, I have quite an imagination. So much so, that I believe I can come up with an application explicit to me. Then show me the free software that will do my bidding.
Regardless of whether you wish a free (as in freedom) solution or a proprietary solution, it would seem that you would either have to develop the program yourself or pay for its development. Proprietary software provides no better solution for your imaginative need.
I learned all these things and more in high school. My high school was anything but an excellent school, and I am an American.
Thanks for clearing that up. How could we all have been so stupid as to think that we know what we need? In the future, anytime I feel the urge to form my own opinion of my needs, I'll be sure to consult you straight away.
He says the error rate is acceptable when evenly distributed because he understands the difference between accuracy and precision.
How about allowing a user to place a site on a list of sites that will be asked for the same hash (randomly chosen for each site) everytime? This means that sourceforge simply needs to save the hash and send it with subsequent emails.
This may be funny, but it's also damned insightful. I wish I had some mod points.
Duke Nukem Drifts Forever
It is trivial to copy your eyes. To the computer your eyes are just a string of ones and zeroes. Once a thief has the stream that matches your eyes he can find a way to feed that to the computer and it will "think" it's interacting with you.
Of course, biometrics is more useful when combined with additional security factors such as passwords. That is why I specifically mentioned that fact in the very message to which you replied.
How long until someone sets up a phony ATM to capture retinal patterns? And unlike passwords, your retinal pattern is not something you can change as needed.
Don't get me wrong, biometrics has its place but that place is part of a multi-factor security system. I predict that we will eventually see ATMs that require a card, password and biometrics. Three factors: something you have, something you know and something you are.
Biometrics by itself is useless for security.
To: /dev/null
Speedcubing.com maintains an unofficial world record for 'solving' the cube by assembly.
a ssemble
http://speedcubing.com/records/recs_dext.html#3x3